[Community] OSLC RM - meetings during July
Steve K Speicher
sspeiche at us.ibm.com
Fri Jul 10 09:34:52 EDT 2009
ian.green at uk.ibm.com wrote on 07/09/2009 02:34:49 PM:
> An alternative is to separate the requirement representation from
> the resources to which it is related, as the CM specification does. (See
> sortcol=table;up=#Managing_multi_valued_properties.) So the
> requirement could indicate the presence of a group of links
> (collected by type?).
> In the CM approach links are not first-class in the resource model -
> i can't GET a link, nor can I DELETE one: they are not resources.
In CM, these links are resources and can be deleted. They are just quite
light weight, the are resources that only have properties such as a label
and a URL to the resource they represent. We didn't expand on the
construct as it followed typical REST semantics. We introduced the
collref attribute to identify URL that represent a collection of
resources, so consumers will know that collection semantics apply: knowing
that GET'ing the URL from collref will result in a feed/collection of
resources. Then those resources can be GET, PUT, DELETE, etc.
Steve Speicher | IBM Rational Software | (919) 254-0645
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Community